Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Cooper v. Stategreen1 sentence2018See Cooper v. State, 831 N.E.2d 1247, 1251 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (State presented sufficient evidence to disprove Cooper’s claim that she accidentally struck child victim; Cooper was angry and struck the child repeatedly, with force), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
Elmer J. Bailey v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2016See Bailey, 979 N.E.2d at 135 . | 1 | 1 |
Brooks v. Stategreen1 sentence2013In reviewing the denial of the motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion, the Court observed that “if the trial court after a hearing finds that the arrest was reasonable and there is probable cause to believe the defendant violated a criminal law, revocation will be sustained.” Id. at 674 (emphasis added) (citing Brooks v. State, 692 N.E.2d 951, 953 (Ind.Ct.App.1998), trans. denied). | 1 | 1 |
Cooper v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Because the defendant in Cooper failed to timely appeal, he forfeited his right to appeal the trial court’s order, and thus the only issue properly before the Court was “whether the trial court erred in denying Cooper’s motion to reconsider.” Id. at 673 . 2013In reviewing the denial of the motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion, the Court observed that “if the trial court after a hearing finds that the arrest was reasonable and there is probable cause to believe the defendant violated a criminal law, revocation will be sustained.” Id. at 674 (emphasis added) (citing Brooks v. State, 692 N.E.2d 951, 953 (Ind.Ct.App.1998), trans. denied). | 1 | 1 |
Drane v. Stategreen1 sentence2011Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind.2007). | 1 | 1 |
Marriage of Pond v. Pondgreen1 sentence2009See Pond v. Pond, 700 N.E.2d 1130, 1135 (Ind.1998); State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
Sheridan v. Town of Merrillvillegreen1 sentence1992See Sheridan, supra, at 270-71 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jessica Kishpaugh v. John Odegard and Miriam Odegard
green
1 sentence2018Thus, “[i]t is not sufficient for the argument section that an appellant simply recites facts and makes conclusory statements without analysis or authoritative support.” Kishpaugh v. Odegard, 17 N.E.3d 363 , 373 n.3 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). [14] Cooper’s brief does just that. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Cooper Industries, LLC v. City of South Bend
green
1 sentence2010Cooper Indus., LLC v. City of South Bend, 863 N.E.2d 1253 (Ind.Ct.App.2007), trams. gronted. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.